linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu/nocb: Add an option to ON/OFF an offloading from RT context

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YnvN3PPds3BlZ5fi@pc638.lan>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 16:53:16 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Alison Chaiken <achaiken@...ora.tech>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@...il.com>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu/nocb: Add an option to ON/OFF an offloading from RT
 context

> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:29:57AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 May 2022 15:39:56 +0200
> > Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > <snip>
> > >  rcuop/6-54  [000] .N..  183.753018: rcu_invoke_callback:  rcu_preempt rhp=0xffffff88ffd440b0 func=__d_free.cfi_jt
> > >  rcuop/6-54  [000] .N..  183.753020: rcu_invoke_callback:  rcu_preempt rhp=0xffffff892ffd8400 func=inode_free_by_rcu.cfi_jt
> > >  rcuop/6-54  [000] .N..  183.753021: rcu_invoke_callback:  rcu_preempt rhp=0xffffff89327cd708 func=i_callback.cfi_jt
> > >  ... 
> > >  rcuop/6-54  [000] .N..  183.755941: rcu_invoke_callback:  rcu_preempt rhp=0xffffff8993c5a968 func=i_callback.cfi_jt
> > >  rcuop/6-54  [000] .N..  183.755942: rcu_invoke_callback:  rcu_preempt rhp=0xffffff8993c4bd20 func=__d_free.cfi_jt
> > >  rcuop/6-54  [000] dN..  183.755944: rcu_batch_end:        rcu_preempt CBs-invoked=2112 idle=>c<>c<>c<>c<
> > >  rcuop/6-54  [000] dN..  183.755946: rcu_utilization:      Start context switch
> > >  rcuop/6-54  [000] dN..  183.755946: rcu_utilization:      End context switch
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > i spent some time in order to understand why the context was not switched,
> > > even though the "rcuop" kthread was marked as TIF_NEED_RESCHED and an IPI
> > > was sent to the CPU_0 to reschedule. The last "." in latency field shows
> > > that a context has not disabled any preemption. So everything should be fine.
> > > 
> > > An explanation is that a local_bh_disable() modifies the current_thread_info()->preempt.count
> > > so a task becomes non preemtable but the ftrace does not provide any signal about
> > > it. So i was fooled for some time by my tracer logs.
> > > 
> > > Do you have any thoughts about it? Should it be solved or signaled
> > > somehow that a task in fact is not preemtable if a counter > 0?
> > 
> > Hmm, it should show it in the first part (where the 'd' is). Is this a
> > snapshot from the kernel or from trace-cmd?
> > 
> I do both and the behavior is the same. But the above one looks like a
> kernel trace output, the trace-cmd snapshot looks differently. So you
> mean "s" has to be there then?
> 
> <snip>
> 	entry->preempt_count		= pc & 0xff;
> 	entry->pid			= (tsk) ? tsk->pid : 0;
> 	entry->type			= type;
> 	entry->flags =
> #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT
> 		(irqs_disabled_flags(flags) ? TRACE_FLAG_IRQS_OFF : 0) |
> #else
> 		TRACE_FLAG_IRQS_NOSUPPORT |
> #endif
> 		((pc & NMI_MASK    ) ? TRACE_FLAG_NMI     : 0) |
> 		((pc & HARDIRQ_MASK) ? TRACE_FLAG_HARDIRQ : 0) |
> 		((pc & SOFTIRQ_OFFSET) ? TRACE_FLAG_SOFTIRQ : 0) |
> 		(tif_need_resched() ? TRACE_FLAG_NEED_RESCHED : 0) |
> 		(test_preempt_need_resched() ? TRACE_FLAG_PREEMPT_RESCHED : 0);
> <snip>
> 
> BTW, i am not the 5.10 kernel. I have not checked the latest kernel
> and what ftrace reports under holding local_bh_disable().
>
Sorry, the was a typo. I am checking 5.10 kernel and the trace was taken
on that kernel.